I have noticed over the past month or so that barrier pedestals have started appearing at just about all of the AOCL's on the East Suffolk Line (the only one with no visible work at present is Dawdys.)

Firstly are AOCL+B's the final death knell for AOCL's? It seems that the trials must have gone well up in Scotland?

Secondly, does the provision of AOCL+B's allow for a linespeed increase over the crossing or is this all dependent on sighting time for the DWL? From memory the highest speed permitted over an AOCL/ABCL is 55mph, which matches the speed on the East Suffolk, however nearly all of the crossings on the line have a considerably lower speed over them, which leads to a very annoying journey that takes a lot longer than it should do.

I understand that the crossings will still use the original crossing circuitry, track circuits, roadlights and Driver's Crossing Indicators (DCI) provided for the AOCL. The crossing is still effectively an AOCL, the only change being the addition of barriers across the approach roads, provided as additional protection for the public. Unusually, the barriers may be in front of the roadlights on some crossings and the pedestals will therefore need to be set back from the road edge further than when in the standard position.

I'm assuming the 'Level Crossing Order' will need to be amended and that the signage at the crossing and on the approach to the crossing will need to be changed to indicate that there are barriers. I guess in some cases the road markings (Stop Lines) will also need to be altered.

I doubt that any of the changes will make a difference to the line-speed over the crossings.

That crossing is also asymmetrical in that the barriers close off the footpaths on one side of the line but not the other. That would obviously apply at an AHB too, although I've never noticed a clearly delineated footpath on an AHB. I can think of an ABCL with separate pedestrian/cyclist lights, but that also seems not to be the case here. Is this crossing unusual or have I simply failed to notice cases where the footpath and the carriageway are not treated as one?

Mike Hodgson wrote: " That crossing is also asymmetrical in that the barriers close off the footpaths on one side of the line but not the other. .... "

Looking at the photo, did you mean that 'the barriers close off the footpaths on one side of the road but not the other' ? That's how it looks to me, with the barriers appearing to close off the footpaths in the same way that they do for the two sides of the road traffic lanes; i.e. 'approach' side but not 'exit' side.

Of course it could still be looked at as risky, as, unlike the roadway, in the case of a footway on both sides, there is no defined single direction for their use.

Well, it amounts to the same thing really. Each footpath has a gate on one side of the line, but no gate on the other side - if you walk along the footpath on the left hand side of the road, your entrance to the crossing is blocked but not your exit. If you walk on the other side of the road facing oncoming traffic (recommended, at least where there is no footpath at all, so not really relevant here), you are not impeded by a gate until you reach the far side. The lights and yodels should have given you due warning of any train of course. It's no more dangerous than the AOCL it replaces.

Mike Hodgson wrote:That crossing is also asymmetrical in that the barriers close off the footpaths on one side of the line but not the other. That would obviously apply at an AHB too, although I've never noticed a clearly delineated footpath on an AHB. I can think of an ABCL with separate pedestrian/cyclist lights, but that also seems not to be the case here. Is this crossing unusual or have I simply failed to notice cases where the footpath and the carriageway are not treated as one?

A slight deviation from the title, but this is Tangley AHB near Guildford in 2008, which has clearly delineated footpaths. There is also 'herding' fencing to the side of the footpath on the non-barrier approach together with a gate and a clear reminder not to cross when the lights are showing. This appears to be a regional variation with a few of this design 'south of the river', but there are none of this style in East Anglia.

Ultimately, the Level Crossing Order and associated 'Ground Plan' identify what crossing protection is provided and the requirements for the road markings.

ex Probationer wrote: " .... A slight deviation from the title, but this is Tangley AHB near Guildford in 2008, which has clearly delineated footpaths. There is also 'herding' fencing to the side of the footpath on the non-barrier approach together with a gate and a clear reminder not to cross when the lights are showing. This appears to be a regional variation with a few of this design 'south of the river', but there are none of this style in East Anglia. .... "

Thanks ex Probationer; I have not previously encountered these measures: Very interesting.

No, I hadn't seen that variation either. There is a quite remarkable variety in the detailed design of level crossings. I see the Tangley pedestrian gate also has a notice just in case Joe Public thinks (if he thinks at all) that wig-wags only apply to motors.

Mechy wrote:It was quite interesting when riding the line the other day, The DWL was flashing before the barriers had fully lowered. I assume the Barriers aren't actually plumbed in to the DWL circuitry?

I think this may be correct as on an AOCL/ABCL the DCI's (Driver's Crossing Indicators as DWL's do not include a flashing red) change from a flashing red to a flashing white only as an indication that the crossing circuitry is operating correctly, I don't think it is an indication to driver that the crossing has operated or that it is safe to pass over the crossing. The train driver should still adjust the speed of the train and be prepared to stop before the crossing if the flashing white does not show or if the crossing is obstructed.